Any time a modern law has the word Freedom in it, there will be fuckery. Same goes for the word Patriot. You can always expect the opposite of the original definitions of the words. Wrapping a turd in the flag is now the American way.

15 years ago a website was launched which discussed NSA crimes and surveillance.
It was dismissed as ridiculous by all.
It is still up, waiting for the world to catch up.

Now that Snowden has published, perhaps it is time for a second look.

Echelon, as the program was first named, required billions of 1980’s and 90’s dollars to build.

To fund it they engaged in a series of incredibly high profile terrorist actions and cloaked them
in a psyops campaign which was so powerful that when they closed the operation with an arrest
and public trial of the brainwashed patsy, everybody got a good laugh and walked away.

To this day, if you mention the case to anyone over 25, they are flooded with feelings of ridicule and absurdity.
To say the word is to define yourself as a nut.
It worked.

Don’t let it work on you. Ignore those feelings and take a good look at the deep dark world
of the NSA as exposed on the site Unabombers.com

I am shocked — shocked— to find that gambling is going on in here! Really, it would almost be alarming if Congress passed a law that did in fact limit NSA authority. We might have to re-evaluate our opinion of them. Fortunately, in their ongoing effort to reach ever-greater depths in the limiting of liberty, equality and fraternity – all three at once – Congress has made any such mental effort unnecessary.

Don’t forget to vote people! Help support the system that doesn’t support you by choosing from an artificial list of 2 state approved candidates. They differ in election rhetoric but you can rest assured that once elected, they will forget all about you.

The system; working as intended so they don’t have to. Validate absurdity today!

I completely agree. It’s not a strategy but rather a moralistic response to a corrupt system which has disenfranchised itself from the people. Much like the TSA, voting is merely theater which only serves to keep the populace in line by providing the illusion of participation and choice.

We have more effect on the direction of our nation by exercising diligence and prudence when deciding with what brand or company we spend our money than we ever will with voting.

I’m not suggesting that abstaining from participation in the theater of politics will effect change. Only that voting is an opiate while spending has direct real world consequences.

Only that voting is an opiate while spending has direct real world consequences.

Not voting also has very direct, real world consequences as well. Wars, etc.

We as a citizenry haven’t opened the doors to better candidates over decades with a long-term strategy and we’re now seeing the end result. Corporatists, in general, thrive on false equivalency and that’s why their corporate media spends so much time and effort conflating lesser and greater evil as one in the same. It creates a ping pong effect, instead of slow, progressive change over decades.

Do you really think it’s by accident that most Americans think that Democratic Representatives at large supported the Iraq War resolution when they didn’t? Democratic Representatives who voted against the war vastly outnumbered Republicans.

If the American public had resisted falling for false equivalence and had voted in more lesser evil Democrats up to that point, we wouldn’t have entered the Iraq War. That’s just one of many disasters that could have been averted if less Americans embraced false equivalence, short-term thinking and voted in more lesser evil instead.

And, once again, on top of going into more wars (Syria, Iran, etc.) by not voting we usher in yet more Republicans that make gerrymandering and voter suppression an art form and make third party penetration near impossible down the road.

Not voting also has very direct, real world consequences as well. Wars, etc.

That’s a ludicrous reach. Let’s forget about the fact that no matter who you voted for in the last presidential election, you would have ended up with a continuation of the wars we are currently involved in and the creation of new battle fronts. The fact of the matter is my vote would not in any way effect the number of wars in which we as a nation are engaged. Meanwhile, no matter who you voted for, you have blood on your hands for putting those people in power who created these wars in the first place. H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed with both parties voting to invade. Unless you only voted for the single independent candidate, you are responsible for the deaths caused by this decision. Laying this violence on the non-voter has no merit or reason.

We as a citizenry haven’t opened the doors to better candidates over decades with a long-term strategy and we’re now seeing the end result.

Democratic Representatives who voted against the war vastly outnumbered Republicans.

Yet, despite how they and others voted, the result was the same, wasn’t it?

You are a fan of a particular party. You feel your vote is important. I get that. It helps me understand why you so strongly object to my non-traditional participation but I assure you, my choice to not vote won’t hurt you. However, your choice to vote may very well hurt me and others.

The current system is clearly corrupt and in the hands of the oligarchs. By choosing one politician over the other, you may elect someone who starts a war, spends money to shut down abortion clinics, or in some other way, passes a law which restricts the rights and freedoms of another person. Your voting is immoral and violent. It presumes that by electing a person to pass laws concerning the activities of others, this absolves the voter of the violence created by the enactment of seemingly rational laws. However, this is not the case. Those who voted for the politicians who enacted our drug laws are directly responsible for the death, misery, and suffering of the victims of laws based on a single groups morality. The act of voting does not sanitize the voter from the responsibility of unleashing such harm and evil in the world. Those who vote for politicians today are responsible for the blood they will shed tomorrow.

In these discussions you often like to point out how one party is this and the other is that yet after over 200 years of this system they both have cause bloodshed and harm in the name of freedom. By voting, you endorse these actions and the system which produces them.

Why not step in the the light and vote with your feet and your dollars so that you can effect real and positive change?

60 percent of Democratic Representatives voted against the Iraq Resolution while less than 3 percent of Republican Representatives voted against it. For some reason the media rarely focuses on how much dissent there was from Democrats. I wonder why?

Once again, if the American public had voted in more Democrats the Iraq Resolution would have failed.

What’s a ludicrous reach is thinking that not voting accomplishes anything. If more people had voted in Democrats, we would have avoided an extremely costly ground war in Iraq that we are paying for in lives and treasure to this day.

Iraq Resolution passed with both parties voting to invade.

Once again, you really need to educate yourself on American history. 60 percent of Democratic Representatives voted against the Iraq Resolution while less than 3 percent of Republican Representatives voted against it.

It was NOT even close to being passed equally by both parties. And there’s no evidence to show that even if someone like Obama was in office at the time that the Democrats would have voted in any less numbers. For example, when the Obama administration pushed to invade Syria, it failed to gather enough strength even from his own Democratic party in the end.

Unless you only voted for the single independent candidate, you are responsible for the deaths caused by this decision. Laying this violence on the non-voter has no merit or reason

That’s based upon ignorance as I showed you above. It wasn’t just a single independent candidate. 60 percent of Democratic Representatives voted against the Iraq Resolution while less than 3 percent of Republican Representatives voted against it.

If you abstained from voting in more liberal Democrats and didn’t vote and a Republican took over, you contributed to Democrats not having enough votes to stop that war.

Let’s forget about the fact that no matter who you voted for in the last presidential election, you would have ended up with a continuation of the wars we are currently involved in and the creation of new battle fronts.

That absolutely false equivalency.

With Obama we are not in open war with Syria and the administration listened to reason and even pulled back from airstrikes.

On the other hand, Romney said we should arm rebels in Syria and rejected the idea that they would pass the weapons on to Al-Queda (just like former Obama nutcase challenger Republican John McCain). And during the November 2011 Republican primary debate, Romney pushed towards regime change in Syria. Just like Bush/Cheney rhetoric leading up the the Iraq war, etc.

With Romney, it’s debatable if we’d have boots on the ground (but it’s likely) in Syria and we sure as hell would have already engaged them with airstrikes and arming our own enemies in Syria along with God only knows what other entanglements to perform “regime change” there. We’d at the very least be setting ourselves up for a ground war by now after Syria freaks out and declares outright war with us.

With Romney, we’d very likely be at war with Iran right now with Republicans cheering him on:

Romney's foreign policy differs from Obama's in one key way: his urge to bomb Iran.

I mean, get real. We are not at war with Iran because we voted in Obama. We are not in open war with Syria. Don’t think for a second that wouldn’t mean drone strikes, because Romney heartily endorses Obama’s drone strikes:

Romney gives a full-throated endorsement of Obama's embrace of drones to hunt down and kill terrorist suspects around the world.

So we’d have all the bullshit Obama is doing along with an outright war in Iran, a war in Syria eventually, Iraq war would be far more escalated under Romney (On top of his saber rattling, Romney’s key advisers included the same damn neoconservatives who championed the Iraq War, for Christ’s sake), as would escalation of the the war in Afghanistan, etc. and God only knows where else the bloodthirsty Republican status quo would push him into.

I’m sorry, but you’re speaking from ignorance when you say that Romney and Obama are the same and would continue wars we are currently involved in equally and create new wars equally. That’s simply not based upon reality.

You are a fan of a particular party.

Nope. I despise the Democratic party as a whole. But, if you don’t vote, you are by proxy a fan of the Republican party that tends to win more elections with lower voter turnout.

I’m a fan of third parties down the road booting out Democrats, but that’s never going to happen if voter turnout is low and Republicans can continue to make an absolute artform out of voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement and rampant gerrymandering of districts.

If voting didn’t matter, then why on Earth would Republicans spend so much time, money and effort to disenfranchise and suppress voting? They wouldn’t.

I assure you, my choice to not vote won’t hurt you. However, your choice to vote may very well hurt me and others.

That’s backwards. As I already said, not voting ushers in yet more politicians that take gerrymandering and voter suppression to another level and make third party penetration near impossible down the road.

The only message that “not voting” sends to Republicans is that their voter suppression campaigns are working and they should step them up for more success. You destroy the future of third parties by not voting. You hurt me and others by not voting.

The current system is clearly corrupt and in the hands of the oligarchs.

Yep, welcome to reality. And, the reality is you only further entrench them by not voting.

We didn’t get to this point with only a small percentage of the population not voting. We’ve gotten to this point with a whopping 40% of the population not voting.

We are only given two choices both of which create the same end result.

That wrong and I’ve proven that to be wrong with facts.

Democratic Representatives who voted against the war vastly outnumbered Republicans.

Yet, despite how they and others voted, the result was the same, wasn’t it?

The point is that if there were more Democrats in office from people voting them in, the Democrats would have won the vote with their drastically higher percentages that voted against the war. Instead, people embraced false equivalency or didn’t vote at all and ushered in too many Republicans for the Democrats to defeat them.

And, all anyone has to do is look at the larger turnout for Obama to know that the Democratic votes were there, they just either chose to “not vote” or embraced false equivalency and vote Republican. A huge mistake in both cases that led to a costly war based upon Republican lies along with the vastly smaller percentage of bluedog Democrats and DINOs who chose to hastily believe them.

By choosing one politician over the other, you may elect someone who starts a war, spends money to shut down abortion clinics,

Um, what? As I’ve shown you with facts, Romney would have brought us back to Bush/Cheney war levels and even possibly worse. And, to equate Democrats with shutting down abortion clinics is ridiculous.

The thing is, with Republicans they’d be shutting down abortion clinics, ramping up warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, getting us into far more wars, shutting out third party hopes down the road, ramping up drone attacks… The list goes on and on.

I despise Obama and many of the status quo Democrats, but that doesn’t mean I let myself get blinded with rage and embrace false equivalency.

Those who voted for the politicians who enacted our drug laws are directly responsible for the death, misery, and suffering of the victims of laws based on a single groups morality.

I hate to break it to you, but I helped with efforts to be the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana and now we’re working on sealing all past marijuana charges. What have you done?

As someone who helped to get marijuana decriminalized in Colorado despite many unhelpful naysayer idiots from both the right and the left… I can tell you that none of this would have been remotely possible under Bush, McCain, Romney or nearly any other viable Republican for the presidency.

Obama sucks and has been worse than G W Bush on some aspects of the drug war bullshit and that’s despicable, but please stop resorting to false equivalence in frustration. Republicans love it when you do that.

We got here by voting, by the way. The non-voters only made our success take longer and people suffered in the meantime.

Voting Democrat has never accomplished me much of anything.
I think everyone who didn't lose their job would beg to differ.
it was irrelevant because my state swung Democrat by such a large margin that I could have voted for Emperor Norton I a few hundred times and that no one would have noticed
I'll tell you who noticed was the candidates. Democrats tend to go further left when they get more support and go further right when they don't.
And as an actual socialist who laughs mockingly a…

If you want to continue this, I suggest we move this a new thread in that vein or read through the above thread since a lot of this had already been discussed there.

Once again, if the American public had voted in more Democrats the Iraq Resolution would have failed.

That’s simply an assumption on your part. No evidence exists to back up this claim.

Cowicide:

What’s a ludicrous reach is thinking that not voting accomplishes anything. If more people had voted in Democrats, we would have avoided an extremely costly ground war in Iraq that we are paying for in lives and treasure to this day.

I never claimed abstaining changed anything other than my participation in an immoral system. Once again, you are making an assumption based on your prejudice and not fact.

Cowicide:

Once again, you really need to educate yourself on American history. 60 percent of Democratic Representatives voted against the Iraq Resolution while less than 3 percent of Republican Representatives voted against it.

You are only counting United States House of Representatives. In the United States Senate, 72% of democrats voted FOR the invasion. Before telling me I need more education, make sure yours is a good one.

Cowicide:

That absolutely false equivalency.

No more than yours, Sir.

Cowicide:

That’s backwards. As I already said, not voting ushers in yet more politicians that take gerrymandering and voter suppression to another level and make third party penetration near impossible down the road.

You can say it all you want but all you are doing is making assertions with nothing to back up your claims. You are guessing at what might have happened. I say voting ushers in more politicians that take gerrymandering and voter suppression to another level and make third party penetration near impossible down the road.

Cowicide:

That wrong and I’ve proven that to be wrong with facts.

You’ve ‘proven’ your point with assumptions. You cannot pretend to know what would have happened had people voted in greater numbers. They very well may have voted for the Republicans.

You are simply a partisan who thinks if everyone voted along your lines then everything would be wonderful. That’s just childish and represents the kind of thinking that we can’t take seriously after seeing the results of the system in action.

How do you reconcile the fact that your voting is violent and promotes harm? Your passive sense of participation is an illusion. I understand why you would work very hard to prove voting is a good thing. After all, you seem to have invested much of yourself in to the process. Some of us see the world a bit more clearly and realize that your mindset it exactly what is wrong. You think you know what is correct politically and are comfortable doing harm to others by proxy. Voting is an act of violence but I don’t think you will ever understand that as it seems you are too invested in the process.

Once again, if the American public had voted in more Democrats the Iraq Resolution would have failed.

That’s simply an assumption on your part. No evidence exists to back up this claim.

Er, except I provided solid evidence to back up my valid assumptions. You, on the other hand, have not. You keep pushing towards false equivalency based upon emotion, while I show the very real differences between the two parties with facts.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the player and the game, but I’m also a realist who doesn’t want to screw over hopes for a third party run down the road with embedded Republicans entrenched with voter suppression tactics, voter disenfranchisement down to a science along with a critical stranglehold on districts through rampant gerrymandering. You do realize the Republican party is doing this right now and not the Democratic party, correct?

I’ve yet to see any argument you’ve presented that truly challenges this very real situation you contribute to by not voting. Of course, there are cases when a Democrat has such a strong lead, one can gamble that she or he will still win, but you haven’t mentioned that tactic at all. Also, if a third party can beat both the Democrats and the Republicans that’d be great too, but that’s rarely the case for the reasons I’ve mentioned above (and that you, once again, contribute to by not voting and ushering in more fricken people that destroy a path for third parties).

I never claimed abstaining changed anything other than my participation in an immoral system.

I believe you when you say that’s what you wish for, but that’s not what you get in reality. Abstaining when you don’t have to do so also happens to lopsidedly benefit Republicans and changes things for the worse, in my opinion.

I’m not saying you’ve been doing so on purpose, but at this point if you continue to do so with the knowledge that low voter turnout benefits Republicans in modern, presidential elections and their ability to block progressive third parties - you are wittingly guilty of aiding and abetting a Republican agenda no matter how much you may try to wish that fact away.

You are only counting United States House of Representatives. In the United States Senate, 72% of democrats voted FOR the invasion. Before telling me I need more education, make sure yours is a good one.

You still need some further education in both the legislative process and mathematics. First of all, with more Democrats in the House of Representatives, they would have killed it before it ever got to the Senate considering the vast majority of the Democrats voted against it 126 to 82.

And, in the Senate it was 29 Democrats for it and 21 against. That means only 58% of the Democrats voted for it, not your much inflated 72% figure.

On the other hand, the Republican Senators voted for it at a whooping 98-99%. Literally only 1 Republican Senator voted against it.

That means in the Senate it only took 9 more Democrats to beat the bluedog Dems on the vote.

However, it would have taken a whopping 48 more RINOs to beat the majority of Republicans on the vote.

You still want to continue to equate these two parties as equal? That’s ridiculous.

That absolutely false equivalency.

No more than yours, Sir.

That’s nice and contrarian and all, but please show me where I’ve made a false equivalency of the two parties? I’ve noted their similarities and their differences and I’ve backed it up with facts, sources, actual history, some proper knowledge of our government process and better math than you as well.

You can say it all you want but all you are doing is making assertions with nothing to back up your claims.

Are you sure you’re reading my posts?

Voting is an act of violence

Voting for people that are less likely to start more wars in the present and much more compatible with allowing the votes of third parties down the road who won’t vote for wars at all is an act of compassion for humanity.

Not voting and ushering in more guaranteed Republican votes for more needless wars is the ultimate act of violence. And not voting and further entrenching the Republicans against third parties is inane and counterproductive towards there ever being peace in our times.

If you have evidence that Republicans don’t start more wars, show it. If you have evidence that Republicans don’t make it more difficult for peaceful third parties down the road, show it.

Otherwise, you really don’t have a leg to stand on here and you need to get your tail out there and vote. Keep in mind, if you followed my link at the end of my previous post, you’ll see where I don’t think voting alone is the answer by any stretch, but it IS vital for all the reasons and evidence I’ve provided.

You are simply a partisan who thinks if everyone voted along your lines then everything would be wonderful.

Where did you hallucinate that? I think we’re in for a hell ride because we’ve embraced false equivalency so long, we’ve still got to clean up all this damage from GW Bush along with every bluedog Democrat and DINO we’ve stupidly voted into office including Obama along the way. It’s going to take decades even if we start electing true liberal Democrats or Independents today especially after having voted in Obama who was too far right but acted like a charlatan and convinced the base he was much further left.

This may confuse you, but it shouldn’t. That’s why I continuously call them the lesser evil. They are evil. They are wrong for this country, but they are the current power structure. You can whine about it and throw away your vote for a greater evil to take hold or do something about it by voting and attacking the root of the problems:

The thing to do is find part of the current power structure that has the most weaknesses and put them in power to defeat them. Republicans are too powerful. Voting them in directly or by proxy by not voting is insanity if one ever wants to see a third party have a chance in hell down the road for the many reasons and evidence I’ve shown repeatedly in my posts.

This is The Art of War instead of pushing up a white flag and letting evil prevail all around you.

Er, except I provided solid evidence to back up my valid assumptions. You, on the other hand, have not.

Your definition of evidence as 'this is how people voted and if more voted it would be different because" is not evidence. It’s speculation. I on the other hand need no evidence since I am not trying to prove anything. I’m simply stating that I think voting is immoral and violent.

You seem incapable of viewing this issue outside the boundaries of a voting system and partisanship.

When you say lesser of two evils I’m floored. My entire point here is that the system is evil, corrupt, violent, etc and that the moral stance is to effect change outside this paradigm. Yet you are happy to vote for evil since it seems less evil than another choice (as if you only had 2 (and I’m not talking 3rd parties here (but it’s unlikely you will get that))). Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil. You know that right?

Let me point out the basic fallacy in your reasoning.
You assume that a higher voter turnout would result in more Democrats being elected which you see as good and lower voter turnout results in more Republicans, which is bad.
However, in the latest elections, more people voted Republican. An unbiased observer might point out that increasing the numbers only increases the total number of votes and not the percentages for any given party.

Secondarily, you seem to believe that the only true path to citizen participation is in the legitimization of a two party system bought and paid for by big money. Failure to vote for one of the prescribed candidates is harmful in your view which in my mind is at once myopic and phobic.

I have no interest in becoming mired in your hatred of certain parties or party members. I invite you to read The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan, The Immorality of Democratic Voting by Kel Kelly, Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA by Mark E Smith, and Your Obligation to Not Vote by Alex R. Knight III so that you may gain some basic understanding of the issue beyond your partisan talking points. If you can demonstrate a basic understanding of positive rights vs negative rights and how that applies to our current situation, then we may have enough common ground to have a rational discussion. Otherwise, your repeating over used talking points and basing your arguments on strained logic serves nothing but your own ego. You can stroke that on your own

And yes, you are a partisan. Anyone who reads your rants can clearly see that. Taking stock of yourself is called for at this point because you seem to be living in a self delusion of objectivity without even realizing how impossible that is. At this point, I don’t think you even have the tools to discuss this in any other way than oft repeated talking points and the common narrative of the state.

Er, except I provided solid evidence to back up my valid assumptions. You, on the other hand, have not.

Your definition of evidence as 'this is how people voted and if more voted it would be different because" is not evidence.

Why continue to resort to misrepresentations of my postions and hyperbole if you’ve got facts and good reasoning on your side?

I didn’t say my evidence was my valid assumptions. I clearly said (read where you quoted me) that I provided evidence to back up my valid assumptions. I mean, it’s right there where you quoted me.

I provided evidence including actual voting records and percentages that clearly showed without a doubt that Democrats voted in vastly larger numbers against the Iraq War than Republicans did. You, on the other hand, provided a false percentage out of nowhere, stated it as fact and I corrected you.

It doesn’t take rocket science or a competent mathematician to deduce that means if there was more Democrats in office, they would statistically vote in larger numbers against the Iraq War. I already explained to you that enough Democratic votes by the population existed. The problem was at that time, the voters previously choose the path of not voting at all along with embracing false equivalency and flip-flopping to vote in more Republicans. A flip-flop problem we’ve had for decades.

I’ve explained to you how the House and Senate works and that 60 percent of Democratic Representatives voted against the Iraq Resolution while less than 3 percent of Republican Representatives voted against it. That’s called evidence. That’s not conjecture, it’s fact. I also showed you how Democrats destroyed Republicans in the Senate on the vote as well. More evidence.

You, on the other hand, have only provided a bogus percentage that was easily corrected. Maybe it’s time to look at what evidence you’re bringing to the table? So far, it’s very little while you ironically chastise me for not bringing forth evidence. I mean, that’s getting delusional.

I on the other hand need no evidence since I am not trying to prove anything. I’m simply stating that I think voting is immoral and violent.

Um, you should really read those two sentences back to yourself. It’s called contradicting yourself. Why should anyone take your second sentence seriously after your first sentence there?

Saying that you don’t need to provide evidence is frankly just another extremely weak way of saying that you can’t back yourself up with facts and you have issues with admitting mistakes.

Also, it’s not going unnoticed that you are being disingenuous. You tried to provide a fact and it was a percentage you pulled out of your behind. Now that I’ve corrected you, instead of admitting your error, you simply try to say evidence doesn’t matter now. You can’t have it both ways.

You don’t need evidence, but I do? You’re now reminding me of the tactics of climate change deniers at this point. C’mon, you’re better than this, aren’t you?

You seem incapable of viewing this issue outside the boundaries of a voting system and partisanship.

You seem incapable of dealing with our current day realities which involves a voting system. You also seem incapable of noticing my repeated mentions of my loathing for the Democratic Party (as a whole) and my desire to eventually unseat them with a third party that truly stands for peace and equality for this nation.

When you say lesser of two evils I’m floored. My entire point here is that the system is evil, corrupt, violent, etc and that the moral stance is to effect change outside this paradigm.

The problem is you haven’t provided any evidence that you have any plausible solution outside of our current reality. All you’ve told me is you think “not voting” is some glorious answer to our problems and you are so infallible as to not need any evidence to support it. Yet, I must provide evidence to the contrary and when I do, you simply ignore it.

Yet you are happy to vote for evil since it seems less evil than another choice

You aren’t really reading my posts very closely or if you are, you’re not apply reading comprehension very well. Nowhere have I remotely implied that I’m “happy” to vote for evil. As a matter of fact, I’ve stated repeatedly why I’m loathe to vote Democrats.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil. You know that right?

Why keep flaunting your ignorance as if it’s something to be proud of? I’ve stated that literally and repeatedly and explained my position on it. I’m reading everything you’re writing to me. I wish you’d have the dignity to return the favor.

Please do and do it without evidence to back yourself up since you are infallible.

You assume that a higher voter turnout would result in more Democrats being elected which you see as good and lower voter turnout results in more Republicans, which is bad.

That’s a modern, historical fact that lower voter turnout more often results in Republican wins and higher turnout more often results in Democratic wins.

However, in the latest elections, more people voted Republican.

We’ve been discussing Presidential elections, are you now resorting to yet another climate change denier tactic of moving the goal posts? How quaint.

One of the only Democrats to win in recent times with lower turnout from his predecessor was Carter (but still higher than Reagan). Reagan won with even lower turnout than Carter and HW Bush won afterwards when turnout went even lower (almost its lowest in modern times).

When voting shot upwards again after being in a slump for 20 years, it was Clinton who won. Yep, a Democrat. You might focus on the voter turnout slump for Clinton’s reelection but then you’d have to be ignorant of the scandal where errant pre-election polls drastically overstated Clinton’s lead over Dole and swayed voter apathy on both sides. You do understand anomalies, don’t you?

Obama won with extremely high voter turnout. Very much near the level we saw with Kennedy’s levels (Yet another Democrat who won with extremely high record voter turnout)… and Obama did it twice with his extremely high turnout. Actually, it was the highest turnout in 40 fucking years in BOTH elections.

This isn’t my observations. This isn’t conjecture. This is reality based upon the actual history of the United States of America and our Presidential elections in modern history.

But, please… do go on…

An unbiased observer might point out that increasing the numbers only increases the total number of votes and not the percentages for any given party.

That wouldn’t be an unbiased observer, that would be a biased observer that ignores history.

Secondarily, you seem to believe that the only true path to citizen participation is in the legitimization of a two party system bought and paid for by big money

Once again, that clearly shows that you honestly are not reading my posts. If my posts are too long for you to comprehend all of it, let me know and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I’ve stated that literally and repeatedly that the two party system is inadequate. That’s why I want both the Democratic party and the Republican part to be defeated by ushering in alternative third parties. I’ve also repeatedly linked to active campaigns I support to fight corrupt money in politics.

You’ve repeatedly countered that it’s simply enough to “not vote” and you also are above providing evidence to support such wild claims while disingenuously demanding that I provide evidence to support my claim even after I’ve repeatedly done so.

I’m reading everything you’re writing to me. I wish you’d have the dignity to return the favor or quit wasting my time.

Failure to vote for one of the prescribed candidates is harmful in your view which in my mind is at once myopic and phobic.

Right, your same view that you now outright refuse to back up with actual evidence after your frail attempt at providing supporting evidence failed and failed miserably.

I have no interest in becoming mired in your hatred of certain parties or party members.

Ok.

I invite you to read The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan, The Immorality of Democratic Voting by Kel Kelly, Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA by Mark E Smith, and Your Obligation to Not Vote by Alex R. Knight III

I’ve read them. Next.

Oh and do note that despite your insistence that I can’t comprehend your superior concepts, etc. – Your first comment about “free market” principles made it painfully obvious you’re a libertarian or at least lean that way.

so that you may gain some basic understanding of the issue beyond your partisan talking points.

I’ve read them. Next.

If you can demonstrate a basic understanding of positive rights vs negative rights and how that applies to our current situation, then we may have enough common ground to have a rational discussion.

A rational discussion would involve providing evidence for your opinions. How about you meet me halfway?

I’ll discuss positive rights vs negative rights and how that may or may not apply to our current situation and you also start providing evidence for your opinions especially while you demand it of me?

And if your evidence is found to be wrong (i.e., your percentage you offered), you start admitting where you’re wrong if I correct you. Makes things progress that way instead of just sounding off and appearing obtuse and belligerent.

Here is a thread as promised to discuss the topic and how it relates to why "not voting" is the proper thing to do in the United States or perhaps not in our current situation.
Edit: Sorry @JonasEggeater, my mistake. I forgot to link back to where this started here:
Here is where the topic of positive rights vs negative rights gets brought up directly by @dacree:
Link to bbs post in thread.
This is what started the whole thing with a response to my post:
Link to bbs post in thread…

And yes, you are a partisan. Anyone who reads your rants can clearly see that.

You are only seeing what you want to see. A partisan would be a strong supporter of only the Democratic party. I only support some elements of it and overall (as I’ve told you repeatedly) want it either reformed drastically so it doesn’t hardly resemble the party it is today or destroyed. Either way, I want third parties and third party candidate to take control (as I’ve told you repeatedly).

You’re either not reading what I’m saying or you understand what partisanship means as well as you understand percentages and the importance of backing up one’s opinions with evidence.

Taking stock of yourself is called for at this point because you seem to be living in a self delusion of objectivity without even realizing how impossible that is.

You’re projecting at this point. If I didn’t take stock in myself and try to be objective, I wouldn’t feel the need to provide evidence, analyze said evidence for its veracity and continue to provide evidence even while you refuse to do so.

I provide evidence because I question things. I’ve gathered this evidence because I don’t think basing one’s opinions on falsehoods and ignoring actual history is wise. You obviously disagree or at least changed your position to disagree once your evidence fell apart.

Not sure why you’d think I’d miss that.

At this point, I don’t think you even have the tools to discuss this in any other way than oft repeated talking points and the common narrative of the state.

More projection on your part. Once again, I’ve provided evidence that backs up my statements and suppositions. Meanwhile, you don’t even come to the plate with proper evidence. And when you tried and failed, you simply tried to switch up and say you’re above providing any evidence.

That is ridiculous and an embarrassing way to take yourself out. Sometimes it’s better to own up to the small mistakes you get wrong and work harder on getting the newer stuff right. Otherwise, it’s really difficult to trust you or respect your opinions.

That’s a ludicrous reach. Let’s forget about the fact that no matter who you voted for in the last presidential election, you would have ended up with a continuation of the wars we are currently involved in and the creation of new battle fronts.

Yes, the wars in Iran, Syria, and North Africa have indeed turned into a giant clusterfuck. We’re stretched so thin over these areas, as well as Iraq, Venezuela, North Korea, the nuclear armament of Japan and all the economic aid to Japan for the building of their new carrier fleet, the prophylactic occupation of Crimea, … er.

You’re right, though, we can’t take Republicans at their word when they vow repeatedly to escalate and invade. They’re exactly like Democrats. Exactly.